Why HZ?

[Niccolai]

Re: Why HZ?

I would disagree.
HZ pickups don't have active circuts, and yes that makes them cheaper; but I don't think they are produced for cheapness. theres not much of a price difference between a set of h4s and a ZW set.

there are many theories on how active pickups give you more gain at the cost of your tonal range, wich is where passive pickups come in. Personally, I prefer H4s to 81s and I HATE 86 and 85s.

[Sunbane]

Re: Why HZ?

[ QUOTE ]
there are many theories on how active pickups give you more gain at the cost of your tonal range, wich is where passive pickups come in.

[/ QUOTE ]
For me personally, I think most of those "theories" are pure BS. The idea behind the original EMGs was to get a quieter pickup by using a low output pickup and then boost the signal with an internal preamp. I don't see how actives would be any less tonally versatile than a passive pup. I'd rather think it's the opposite, but that's just my opinion for you...

[toejam]

Re: Why HZ?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there are many theories on how active pickups give you more gain at the cost of your tonal range, wich is where passive pickups come in.

[/ QUOTE ]
For me personally, I think most of those "theories" are pure BS. The idea behind the original EMGs was to get a quieter pickup by using a low output pickup and then boost the signal with an internal preamp. I don't see how actives would be any less tonally versatile than a passive pup. I'd rather think it's the opposite, but that's just my opinion for you...

[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree, Bane! [img]/images/graemlins/toast.gif[/img] EMGs rock and sound amazing. The 85 in the bridge with either a 60 or 81 in the neck kick ass and drip with tone! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[toejam]

Re: Why HZ?

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I prefer H4s to 81s and I HATE 86 and 85s.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is this 86 that you speak of? No such thing. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Sunbane]

Re: Why HZ?

Toejam: Yeah man, absolutely! Btw, I just ordered a new custom shop 58 and an S single from Guitar Parts Depot. They are going into the Charvel. =) I can't wait for them to get here!

Well, let's not hijack the thread entirely... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I also think the choice of HZs over actives is a cost issue for Jackson. EMG are pushing the HZs as OEM pickups, so Jackson probably get them at a good price.

As for me, I've only tried guitars with HZs in shops, but I didn't like them much. I felt that they lacked the edge and punch I get from the actives - but then again, I haven't yet tried the H4.

[Widowmaker]

Re: Why HZ?

"As for me, I've only tried guitars with HZs in shops, but I didn't like them much. I felt that they lacked the edge and punch I get from the actives - but then again, I haven't yet tried the H4."

It's just as disappointing.

[hunter1970]

Re: Why HZ?

Try EMG's or seymour duncan "Livewires" ,as far as the low end your looking for dial it in with your amplifier,thats what I always thought anyways,Good Luck on your quest for the ultimate tone,on here you'l hear this is better than that but to each his own and the only person who knows what you like is you so get ready to start experimenting with what sounds good to you.

[jmOS]

Re: Why HZ?

Thanks for the answers!

This moment it seems that it will be an 85 for bridge position.
Well I'm a bit confused about neck: does anyone tried 89?
They say it sounds like an 85 as a humbucker and an SA as a single coil.
Does anyone tried?
I'd like to have a single coil for neck as it HAS to have better cleans - I think.

I use the neck quite rarely: only if I need clean or ligtly distorted (eg. blues) tone (with good old JTM 45 sound).
Maybe H or HA (humbucker size S)would also be good, but it seems that they simply couldn't be bought here in Europe :-(